After having handled those things necessary for the erection of the kingdom of God, — that righteousness is to be sought from
God alone, that salvation is to come to us alone from his mercy, that all blessings are laid up and daily offered to us in
Christ only, — Paul now passes on, according to the best order, to show how the life is to be formed. If it be, that through
the saving knowledge of God and of Christ, the soul is, as it were,
regenerated into a celestial life, and that the life is in a manner formed and regulated by holy exhortations and precepts;
it is then in vain that you show a desire to form the life aright, except you prove first, that the origin of all righteousness
in men is in God and Christ; for this is to raise them from the dead.

And this is the main difference between the gospel and philosophy: for though the philosophers speak excellently and with
great judgment on the subject of morals, yet whatever excellency shines forth in their precepts, it is, as it were, a beautiful superstructure without a foundation; for by omitting principles,
they offer a mutilated doctrine, like a body without a head. Not very unlike this is the mode of teaching under the Papacy:
for though they mention, by the way, faith in Christ and the grace of the Holy Spirit, it yet appears quite evident, that
they approach heathen philosophers far nearer than Christ and his Apostles.

But as philosophers, before they lay down laws respecting morals, discourse first of the end of what is good, and inquire
into the sources of virtues, from which afterwards they draw and derive all duties; so Paul lays down here the principle from
which all the duties of holiness flow, even this, — that we are redeemed by the Lord for this end — that we may consecrate
to him ourselves and all our members. But it may be useful to examine
every part.

1. I therefore beseech you by the mercies (miserationes — compassions) of God, etc. We know that unholy men, in order to gratify the flesh, anxiously lay hold on whatever is set forth in Scripture respecting
the infinite goodness of God; and hypocrites also, as far as they can, maliciously darken the knowledge of it, as though the
grace of God extinguished the desire for a godly life, and opened to audacity the door of
sin. But this exhortation teaches us, that until men really apprehend how much they owe to the mercy of God, they will
never with a right feeling worship him, nor be effectually stimulated to fear and obey him. It is enough for the Papists,
if they can extort by terror some sort of forced obedience, I know not what. But Paul, that he might bind us to God, not by
servile fear, but by the voluntary and cheerful love of righteousness, allures us by the sweetness of that favor, by which
our
salvation is effected; and at the same time he reproaches us with ingratitude, except we, after having found a Father
so kind and bountiful, do strive in our turn to dedicate ourselves wholly to him.
377377 By “mercies,” the Apostle refers, as some think, to the various sects of God’s mercy, such as election, vocation, justification,
and final salvation. Grotius considers that God’s attributes are referred to, such as are described in Exodus 34:6,7. Erasmus, quoting
Origen, says, that the plural is used for amplification, in order to show the greatness of God’s mercy, as though the Apostle had
said, “by God’s great mercy.” Schleusner renders the clause, “per summam Dei benignitatem — by God’s great kindness,” that is, in bringing you to the knowledge of the gospel. So “Father of mercies,” in
2 Corinthians 1:3, may mean “most merciful Father,” or the meaning may be, “the Father of all blessings,” as mercy signifies sometimes what
mercy bestows, (Philippians 2:1,) as grace or favor often means the gift which flows from it. According to this view, “mercies” here are the blessings which
God bestows, even the
blessings of redemption. — Ed.

And what Paul says, in thus exhorting us, ought to have more power over us, inasmuch as he excels all others in setting forth
the grace of God. Iron indeed must be the heart which is not kindled by the doctrine which has been laid down into love towards
God, whose kindness towards itself it finds to have been so abounding. Where then are they who think that all exhortations
to a holy life are nullified, if the salvation of men depends on the
grace of God alone, since by no precepts, by no sanctions, is a pious mind so framed to render obedience to God, as by
a serious meditation on the Divine goodness towards it?

We may also observe here the benevolence of the Apostle’s spirit, — that he preferred to deal with the faithful by admonitions
and friendly exhortations rather than by strict commands; for he knew that he could prevail more with the teachable in this way than in any other.

That ye present your bodies, etc. It is then the beginning of a right course in good works, when we understand that we are consecrated to the Lord; for it
hence follows, that we must cease to live to ourselves, in order that we may devote all the actions of our life to his service.

There are then two things to be considered here, — the first, that we are the Lord’s, — and secondly, that we ought on this
account to be holy, for it is an indignity to God’s holiness, that anything, not first consecrated, should be offered to him.
These two things being admitted, it then follows that holiness is to be practiced through life, and that we are guilty of
a kind of sacrilege when we relapse into uncleanness, as it is
nothing else than to profane what is consecrated.

But there is throughout a great suitableness in the expressions. He says first, that our body ought to be offered a sacrifice to God; by which he implies that we are not our own, but have entirely passed over so as to
become the property of God; which cannot be, except we renounce ourselves and thus deny ourselves. Then, secondly, by adding
two adjectives, he shows what sort
of sacrifice this ought to be. By calling it living, he intimates, that we are sacrificed to the Lord for this end, — that our former life being destroyed in us, we may be raised
up to a new life. By the term holy, he points out that which necessarily belongs to a
sacrifice, already noticed; for a victim is then only approved, when it had been previously made holy. By the third word, acceptable, he reminds us, that our life is framed aright, when this sacrifice is so made as to be pleasing to God: he brings to us at
the same time no common consolation; for he teaches us, that our work is pleasing and acceptable to God when we devote
ourselves to purity and holiness.

By bodies he means not only our bones and skin, but the whole mass of which we are composed; and he adopted this word, that he might
more fully designate all that we are: for the members of the body are the instruments by which we execute our purposes.
378378 The word σώματα, “bodies,” he seems to have used, because of the similitude he adopts respecting sacrifices; for the bodies
of beasts we are to consecrate our own bodies. As he meant before by “members,” chapter 6:13, the whole man, so he means here by “bodies,” that is,
themselves. They were to be living sacrifices, not killed as the legal sacrifices, they were to be holy, not maimed or defective, but whole and perfect as to all the members, and free from disease. See Leviticus 22:19-22. They
were to be acceptable, εὐάρεστον; “placentem — pleasing,” Beza; “well-pleasing,” Doddridge. It was not sufficient under the law for the sacrifices themselves to be holy, blameless,
such as God required; but a right motive and a right feeling on the part of the offerer were necessary, in order that
they might be accepted or approved by God. Without faith and repentance, and a reformed life, they were not accepted, but
regarded as abominations. See Psalm 51:19; Isaiah
1:11-19 It is said by Wolfius, that all the terms here are derived from the sacrificial rites of the law, and that Christians are represented both as the
priests who offered, and as the sacrifices which were offered by them. — Ed.
He indeed requires from us holiness, not only as to the body, but also as to the soul and spirit, as in 1 Thessalonians 5:23. In bidding us to present our bodies, he alludes to the Mosaic sacrifices, which were presented at the altar, as it were in the presence of God. But
he shows, at the same time, in a striking manner, how prompt we ought to be to receive the commands of God, that we may without
delay obey them.

Hence we learn, that all mortals, whose object is not to worship God, do nothing but miserably wander and go astray. We now
also find what sacrifices Paul recommends to the Christian Church: for being reconciled to God through the one only true sacrifice
of Christ, we are all through his grace made priests, in order that we may dedicate ourselves and all we have to the glory
of God. No sacrifice of expiation is wanted; and no one can be set
up, without casting a manifest reproach on the cross of Christ.

Your reasonable service This sentence, I think, was added, that he might more clearly apply and confirm the preceding exhortation, as though he had
said, — “Offer yourselves a, sacrifice to God, if ye have it in your heart to serve God: for this is the right way of serving
God; from
which, if any depart, they are but false worshippers.” If then only God is rightly worshipped, when we observe all things
according to what he has prescribed, away then with all those devised modes of worship, which he justly abominates, since
he values obedience more than sacrifice. Men are indeed pleased with their own inventions, which have an empty show of wisdom,
as Paul says in another place; but we learn here what the celestial Judge declares in opposition to this by the mouth of Paul;
for by calling that a reasonable service which he commands, he repudiates as foolish, insipid, and presumptuous, whatever
we attempt beyond the rule of his word.
379379 The word λογικὴν, “reasonable,” was considered by Origen, and by many after him, as designating Christian service consonant with reason, in opposition to the sacrifices under the
law, which were not agreeable to reason. But Chrysostom, whom also many have followed,
viewed the word as meaning what is spiritual, or what belongs to the mind, in contradistinction to the ritual and external service of the law; but there is no example
of the word having such a meaning, except it be 1 Peter 2:2, which is by no means decisive. Rational, or reasonable, is its meaning, or, what agrees with the word, as
Phavorinus explains it. There is no need here to suppose any contrast: the expression only designates the act or the service which the
Apostle prescribes; as though he said, “What I exhort you to do is nothing but a reasonable service, consistent with the dictates
of reason. God has done great things for you, and it is nothing but right and just that you should dedicate yourselves wholly
to him.” This seems to be the obvious meaning. To draw
this expression to another subject, in order to set up reason as an umpire in matters of faith, is wholly a perversion:
and to say, that as it seems to refer to the word in 1 Peter 2:2, it must be so considered here, is what does not necessarily follow; for as λόγος sometimes means “word,” and sometimes “reason,”
so its derivative may have
a similar variety. — Ed.

2. And conform ye not to this world, etc. The term world has several significations, but here it means the sentiments and the morals of men; to which, not without cause, he forbids
us to conform. For since the whole world lies in
wickedness, it behooves us to put off whatever we have of the old man, if we would really put on Christ: and to remove
all doubt, he explains what he means, by stating what is of a contrary nature; for he bids us to be transformed into a newness
of mind. These kinds of contrast are common in Scripture; and thus a subject is more clearly set forth.

Now attend here, and see what kind of renovation is required from us: It is not that of the flesh only, or of the inferior
part of the soul, as the Sorbonists explain this word; but of the mind, which is the most excellent part of us, and to which philosophers ascribe the supremacy; for they call it ἡγεμονικὸν, the leading power; and reason is imagined to be a most wise queen. But Paul pulls her down from her throne, and so reduces
her to nothing by teaching us that we must be renewed in mind. For how much soever we may flatter ourselves, that declaration
of Christ is still true, — that every man must be born again, who would enter into the kingdom of God; for in mind and heart
we are altogether alienated from the righteousness of
God.

That ye may prove, 380380Ut probetis, εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς; “ut noscatis — that ye may know,” Theophylact; “ut diligenter scrutemini — that ye may carefully search,” Jerome, “That ye may experimentally know,” Doddridge; “that ye may learn,” Stuart. The verb means chiefly three things, — to test, i.e.,
metals by fire, to try, to prove, to examine, 1 Peter 1:7; Luke 14:19; 2 Corinthians 13:5, — to approve what is proved, Romans 14:22; 1 Corinthians 16:3, — and also to prove a thing so as to make a proper distinction, to discern, to understand, to distinguish, Luke 12:56; Romans 2:18. The last
idea is the most suitable here, “in order that ye may understand what the will of God is, even that which is good and
acceptable and perfect.” What Stuart says on the last clause seems just, that it is to be taken by itself, and that the words do not agree with “will,” but stand
by themselves, being in the neuter gender. Otherwise we cannot affix any idea to “acceptable;” for it would be unsuitable
to say that God’s will is “acceptable” to him, that being self-evident. “Good,” ἀγαθὸν, is useful, advantageous, beneficial; “acceptable,” εὐαρεστον, is what is pleasing to and accepted by God;
and “perfect,” τέλειον, is complete, entire, without any defect, or just and right. It ought to be borne in mind, as Pareus observes, that in order to discern, and rightly to understand God’s will, the Apostle teaches us, that “the renewing of the
mind” is necessary; otherwise, as he adds, “our corrupt nature will fascinate our eyes that they may not see, or if they see,
will turn our hearts and wills, that they may not approve, or if they approve, will hinder us to follow what is approved.”
—
Ed.etc. Here you have the purpose for which we must put on a new mind, — that bidding adieu to our own counsels and desires, and
those of all men, we may be attentive to the only will of God, the knowledge of which is true wisdom. But if the renovation
of our mind is necessary, in order that we may prove what is the will of God, it is hence evident how opposed it is to God.

The epithets which are added are intended for the purpose of recommending God’s will, that we may seek to know it with greater
alacrity: and in order to constrain our perverseness, it is indeed necessary that the true glory of justice and perfection
should be ascribed to the will of God. The world persuades itself that those works which it has devised are good; Paul exclaims,
that what is good and right must be ascertained from God’s
commandments. The world praises itself, and takes delight in its own inventions; but Paul affirms, that nothing pleases
God except what he has commanded. The world, in order to find perfection, slides from the word of God into its own devices;
Paul, by fixing perfection in the will of God, shows, that if any one passes over that mark he is deluded by a false imagination.

377 By “mercies,” the Apostle refers, as some think, to the various sects of God’s mercy, such as election, vocation, justification,
and final salvation. Grotius considers that God’s attributes are referred to, such as are described in Exodus 34:6,7. Erasmus, quoting
Origen, says, that the plural is used for amplification, in order to show the greatness of God’s mercy, as though the Apostle had
said, “by God’s great mercy.” Schleusner renders the clause, “per summam Dei benignitatem — by God’s great kindness,” that is, in bringing you to the knowledge of the gospel. So “Father of mercies,” in
2 Corinthians 1:3, may mean “most merciful Father,” or the meaning may be, “the Father of all blessings,” as mercy signifies sometimes what
mercy bestows, (Philippians 2:1,) as grace or favor often means the gift which flows from it. According to this view, “mercies” here are the blessings which
God bestows, even the
blessings of redemption. — Ed.

378 The word σώματα, “bodies,” he seems to have used, because of the similitude he adopts respecting sacrifices; for the bodies
of beasts we are to consecrate our own bodies. As he meant before by “members,” chapter 6:13, the whole man, so he means here by “bodies,” that is,
themselves. They were to be living sacrifices, not killed as the legal sacrifices, they were to be holy, not maimed or defective, but whole and perfect as to all the members, and free from disease. See Leviticus 22:19-22. They
were to be acceptable, εὐάρεστον; “placentem — pleasing,” Beza; “well-pleasing,” Doddridge. It was not sufficient under the law for the sacrifices themselves to be holy, blameless,
such as God required; but a right motive and a right feeling on the part of the offerer were necessary, in order that
they might be accepted or approved by God. Without faith and repentance, and a reformed life, they were not accepted, but
regarded as abominations. See Psalm 51:19; Isaiah
1:11-19 It is said by Wolfius, that all the terms here are derived from the sacrificial rites of the law, and that Christians are represented both as the
priests who offered, and as the sacrifices which were offered by them. — Ed.

379 The word λογικὴν, “reasonable,” was considered by Origen, and by many after him, as designating Christian service consonant with reason, in opposition to the sacrifices under the
law, which were not agreeable to reason. But Chrysostom, whom also many have followed,
viewed the word as meaning what is spiritual, or what belongs to the mind, in contradistinction to the ritual and external service of the law; but there is no example
of the word having such a meaning, except it be 1 Peter 2:2, which is by no means decisive. Rational, or reasonable, is its meaning, or, what agrees with the word, as
Phavorinus explains it. There is no need here to suppose any contrast: the expression only designates the act or the service which the
Apostle prescribes; as though he said, “What I exhort you to do is nothing but a reasonable service, consistent with the dictates
of reason. God has done great things for you, and it is nothing but right and just that you should dedicate yourselves wholly
to him.” This seems to be the obvious meaning. To draw
this expression to another subject, in order to set up reason as an umpire in matters of faith, is wholly a perversion:
and to say, that as it seems to refer to the word in 1 Peter 2:2, it must be so considered here, is what does not necessarily follow; for as λόγος sometimes means “word,” and sometimes “reason,”
so its derivative may have
a similar variety. — Ed.

380Ut probetis, εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς; “ut noscatis — that ye may know,” Theophylact; “ut diligenter scrutemini — that ye may carefully search,” Jerome, “That ye may experimentally know,” Doddridge; “that ye may learn,” Stuart. The verb means chiefly three things, — to test, i.e.,
metals by fire, to try, to prove, to examine, 1 Peter 1:7; Luke 14:19; 2 Corinthians 13:5, — to approve what is proved, Romans 14:22; 1 Corinthians 16:3, — and also to prove a thing so as to make a proper distinction, to discern, to understand, to distinguish, Luke 12:56; Romans 2:18. The last
idea is the most suitable here, “in order that ye may understand what the will of God is, even that which is good and
acceptable and perfect.” What Stuart says on the last clause seems just, that it is to be taken by itself, and that the words do not agree with “will,” but stand
by themselves, being in the neuter gender. Otherwise we cannot affix any idea to “acceptable;” for it would be unsuitable
to say that God’s will is “acceptable” to him, that being self-evident. “Good,” ἀγαθὸν, is useful, advantageous, beneficial; “acceptable,” εὐαρεστον, is what is pleasing to and accepted by God;
and “perfect,” τέλειον, is complete, entire, without any defect, or just and right. It ought to be borne in mind, as Pareus observes, that in order to discern, and rightly to understand God’s will, the Apostle teaches us, that “the renewing of the
mind” is necessary; otherwise, as he adds, “our corrupt nature will fascinate our eyes that they may not see, or if they see,
will turn our hearts and wills, that they may not approve, or if they approve, will hinder us to follow what is approved.”
—
Ed.